Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NEED SOME HELP WITH 4 GIGS OF RAM

Last response: in Memory
Share
April 1, 2006 9:03:54 AM

Hey guys, this is kinda wierd. I have 4 gigs of ram installed in my computer, but my computer only shows 2.75 gigs on 3dMark or system info. BUT, Bios sees 4 gigs, so does CPU-Z. Wierd...

Anyways, I just need some help on why does this happen? And any other such information, below is my rig.

AMD 64 4000+
ASUS A8N-E MOBO
4 GIGS DDR 3200
GeForce 7900 GT GDDR3 256 MB
DUAL DVD-RW
80 GIG 7800 RPM

More about : gigs ram

April 1, 2006 9:53:18 AM

That's very normal to show like that. The system is implementing some of the ram space. So it only shows the ram that is left. I have 4 Gb in one of my pc and it only shows 3.2 Gb on the windows. It's normal. :D 
April 1, 2006 11:10:27 AM

Quote:
Hey guys, this is kinda wierd. I have 4 gigs of ram installed in my computer, but my computer only shows 2.75 gigs on 3dMark or system info. BUT, Bios sees 4 gigs, so does CPU-Z. Wierd...

Anyways, I just need some help on why does this happen? And any other such information, below is my rig.

AMD 64 4000+
ASUS A8N-E MOBO
4 GIGS DDR 3200
GeForce 7900 GT GDDR3 256 MB
DUAL DVD-RW
80 GIG 7800 RPM


you cannot access 4 gigs on your system. it is the way it is, allthough win 64bit should use it all.
win 32 sees 3gb or so.
Related resources
April 1, 2006 11:40:23 AM

This will affect systems with 4 x 1024 MB DIMMs, dual-channel or not, it will also affect Socket 754 platforms with 2 x 2048 MB DIMMs, and Socket 754 is single-channel by nature. It has affected workstation operating systems (lacking PAE-36) for years.

I can guarantee with Windows XP x64 Edition he'll see all 4 GB in System Properties and thus be able to address all of his physical memory. Versus now he only sees 3.25 GB in System Properties. (Assuming his platform as a whole supports x64 via EM64T or AMD64 extentions)

Various devices have used 'normally unused by memory' parts of the 32 bit address range for accelerated I/O for years, decades even. It is because now people have large amounts physical memory the range gets mapped to the devices for accelerated I/O, and thus can't be mapped to memory.

(eg: Some BIOS have an option to recover part of the range, or decicate part of the range for SLI use. SLI Performance is substantially higher when a wide range is dedicated to it for accelerated I/O purposes.)

The same will also apply to memory stats in Task Manager, Performance tab, and what WinVer.exe reports.

Motherboard manuals 'water down' explanations.

Heck, I run a Tyan K8WE, and only get 2.75 GB of my 4 GB under Win32, leaving 2 'lopsided' NUMA nodes aswell as being unable to physically address all my memory under Win32 (because of heaps of devices using said parts of the 32 bit address range). :p 

Assuming you know how chipset platforms work, and know basic hex, refer to this image:


As you can clearly see from B000,0000 to FFFF,FFFF is in use by devices on the PCI bus, and system board more towards the end of the 32 bit address space.

Being able to map physical memory in the 'available' range from 0000,0000 to B000,000 = gives a maximum mapping range of 2,952,790,016 bytes to physical memory by the (32 bit) Operating System. (Perhaps minus that 256 KB range from A,0000 to D,FFFF at certain times)

2,952,790,016 bytes = 2.75 GB - The exact amount my System Properties window displays.

With less hardware (than my example above) using the address space typical desktop machines will commonly have between 3 GB to 3.5 GB 'available range' to be mapped to physical memory.

This is one of many reasons why Microsoft have been offering free upgrades from Windows XP Pro to Windows XP x64 Edition (in exchange for your old licence though - Downside is having WinXP x64 only may limit which applications you can run in some circumstances. eg: No more backwards support for 16 bit EXEs, some installers are 16 bit and not 'substitued automatically' by the OS for 32 bit ones yet, x64 driver support for hardware, etc, etc...).

However, on a whole WinXP x64 Edition is no-where near as bad as people say it is, and the address range available to it is substantial, we are unlikely to have this 'problem' again (similar to when we went from 24-bit to 32-bit memory addressing. Yes many 16-bit processors, even some early 32-bit ones, only had a 24-bit address range at one time for RAM, back in the days when 4 MB was 'a lot of memory'.)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension ; for a general overview of PAE (64 GB = 36 bit address range). Even though the Windows Kernel supports it, it has only (recently) combined with the NX/XD-bits to enable Enhanced Virus Protection to stop code inserted using Buffer Over-runs from executing.

The PAE 36-bit addressing feature is 'disabled' in the kernel on the 'workstation' versions of Windows. It is only used for NX/XD bit trickery (if available) once Service Pack 2 is added to Windows XP Pro/Home. (Some people may notice it says 'Physical Address Extension' in their system properties, when using 4 GB or less, and this is why.

ie: The 'workstation' versions of the Windows OS can't use PAE to map/address over 4 GB, or up to 64 GB, of RAM. They can however use it for other purposes as Microsoft deam fit (such as combing it with the NX-bit to gain security). Remember to bear in mind typically 768 MB of the address space is used for accelerated I/O, and this is already becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of total memory.

Note: The above was copied from a template I have, it needs work and may refer to posts that are not above it.
April 1, 2006 4:12:22 PM

nice post, i knew it had something to do with win 64 VS 32. thanks for clarifying it.
April 1, 2006 11:00:54 PM

Quote:
nice post, i knew it had something to do with win 64 VS 32. thanks for clarifying it.


I didn't read Tabris's post because he needs to stop copying from websites things he memorizes...anyways...

If you want to use all 4GB under 32-bit, set your Memory Hole configuration in BIOS and Windows will see all 4GB.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 2, 2006 8:25:28 AM

:?: Care to provide, or write up, a HowTo or FAQ on that with screenshots of all 4 GB available under WinVer.exe ? (under a Win32 kernel env), Your post count, and per fortnight post count, is higher than mine so I know you've got the time to do it.

Everyone here would be very interested :D  in having all 4 GB available under Win32 kernel on the Tyan K8WE S2895, and similar boards, where a 'larger than typical' portion of the 32 bit address range is used for PCI devices / accelerated I/O, etc

:idea: If you know how, you should have no problems proving it, these are forums we are all here to share information. :D 


PS: Checking Device Manager like that to get the ranges in use was 'my' personal idea, it isn't presentented on any websites in a format even partially understandable to Joe Average forum reader. If I can read a WhitePaper / TechDoc and water it down enough, while extracting useful information from it to help others, then so be it.
April 2, 2006 5:52:57 PM

Give me 4 1GB sticks and I will.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 2, 2006 6:08:55 PM

Quote:
PS: Checking Device Manager like that to get the ranges in use was 'my' personal idea, it isn't presentented on any websites in a format even partially understandable to Joe Average forum reader. If I can read a WhitePaper / TechDoc and water it down enough, while extracting useful information from it to help others, then so be it.


The problem is is that you don't...you just seem to copy verbatim anything you think will get you noticed...but that's my opinion so meh.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 2, 2006 9:04:18 PM

Quote:
PS: Checking Device Manager like that to get the ranges in use was 'my' personal idea, it isn't presentented on any websites in a format even partially understandable to Joe Average forum reader. If I can read a WhitePaper / TechDoc and water it down enough, while extracting useful information from it to help others, then so be it.


The problem is is that you don't...you just seem to copy verbatim anything you think will get you noticed...but that's my opinion so meh.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

I appreciate some information you post, but your attitude is disgusting. Who gives a royal damn if he copied anything? I suggest you just stfu. He posted some useful information and interesting theories, and just because it doesn't come from you or your perspective, doesn't mean you have to put it down and belittle it in an attempt to make yourself greater and inflate your ego. All you accomplish in the end, is making yourself seem smaller, and full of hot air.
April 2, 2006 10:17:52 PM

The problem is is that you don't...you just seem to copy verbatim anything you think will get you noticed...but that's my opinion so meh.

Does seem to know a little more than anyone else, eh?

Give me 4 1GB sticks and I will.

Except for you. And no you won't, not with winxp. Not sure about Winxp64, but I doubt that either.
April 2, 2006 10:21:18 PM

I have 4 Gb in one of my pc and it only shows 3.2 Gb on the windows. It's normal. Very Happy
_________________
Amtel Dual Core
Gigabyte Mobo
4x512 Mb Corsair Pro


So which is it? 4gb or 4x512? You're correct that it's normal to show less than 4 gb, and I'll just bet no one (except MMM or TDP) will ever post a screenshot showing 4gb used by winxp.
April 2, 2006 11:44:24 PM

Quote:
PS: Checking Device Manager like that to get the ranges in use was 'my' personal idea, it isn't presentented on any websites in a format even partially understandable to Joe Average forum reader. If I can read a WhitePaper / TechDoc and water it down enough, while extracting useful information from it to help others, then so be it.


The problem is is that you don't...you just seem to copy verbatim anything you think will get you noticed...but that's my opinion so meh.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

I appreciate some information you post, but your attitude is disgusting. Who gives a royal damn if he copied anything? I suggest you just stfu. He posted some useful information and interesting theories, and just because it doesn't come from you or your perspective, doesn't mean you have to put it down and belittle it in an attempt to make yourself greater and inflate your ego. All you accomplish in the end, is making yourself seem smaller, and full of hot air.

Some people watch too many drama movies...=/...

Bad: yea..I will...because I've done it before. Send me 4 1GB sticks via eMail.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 3, 2006 4:57:57 PM

Quote:
PS: Checking Device Manager like that to get the ranges in use was 'my' personal idea, it isn't presentented on any websites in a format even partially understandable to Joe Average forum reader. If I can read a WhitePaper / TechDoc and water it down enough, while extracting useful information from it to help others, then so be it.


The problem is is that you don't...you just seem to copy verbatim anything you think will get you noticed...but that's my opinion so meh.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

I appreciate some information you post, but your attitude is disgusting. Who gives a royal damn if he copied anything? I suggest you just stfu. He posted some useful information and interesting theories, and just because it doesn't come from you or your perspective, doesn't mean you have to put it down and belittle it in an attempt to make yourself greater and inflate your ego. All you accomplish in the end, is making yourself seem smaller, and full of hot air.

Yeah! what he said.

but i wont worry about it.

It’s a fact of life on any forum that there will be someone that likes to turn every post into a pissing contest.

As for the actual topic of this post I can give my unprofessional input. I too just bought a new computer and 4GB of matched pairs of 1GB corsair memory. I was less then happy when installing the memory and looking at the MB manual to see it say it recommended 2GB memory as using 4GB would be reported as less. I read up on the problem reading some white papers from Intel and Microsoft on it.

As I read about it I couldn’t help remembering my gaming days in DOS before windows came into being and the old Load Hi and Mem Hi commands. If you where around then and used them to make use of memory above the 640 Kb limit of dos you might remember some programs needed more space to load into the upper 340k of memory then they occupied once they were loaded. So order of loading functions into high memory was important.

The problem as I’ve come to understand it is not that your computer does not see and use all 4GB of memory but one of reporting and sloppy programing in the past. For a long time no one imagined desktop computers ever having 4GB of memory. It was just unthinkable. The address range was there though so programers took advantage of it for device drivers and systems telling them they had so much memory at address ranges above 3GB to 4GB for there use. Being sloppy with it and giving them more then they really needed to function but hey. It was mythical non existent resource so who cares if it was squandered. The programming was such that as these devices actually needed memory they would get memory in real address ranges. Typically much less then what they had been given in the none existent 3 to 4 GB range and not exclusive but sharing with other systems.

Now bam. We have a computer with 4GB of actual physical memory and the programing and device drivers give memory ranges to IO systems and to SLI graphics cards and such for their exclusive use and it is actual physical memory that is then not reported in Device Manager as available. This is really just a reporting error. Its even been discussed to fix the problem by having DM report the installed memory not available memory. Then everyone with 4GB of memory will be happy when they look at it.

As I understand it a system with 2GB of memory will have about 250 meg dedicated to these same processes but they will need swap in and out of it so that while a system with 4GB has more memory dedicated to them they do actually run faster having this space actually there dedicated for their use.

Bottom line. I’m happy seeing 3GB + - reported in Device Manager knowing that the other 1GB is in my machine and being used to speed up my system and that all of that 3GB is free for my programs.
April 3, 2006 10:51:00 PM

Quote:
nice post, i knew it had something to do with win 64 VS 32. thanks for clarifying it.


I didn't read Tabris's post because he needs to stop copying from websites things he memorizes...anyways...

If you want to use all 4GB under 32-bit, set your Memory Hole configuration in BIOS and Windows will see all 4GB.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
That's the most BS I've ever heard.

You just can't outrun PAE-32 with all the devices in Windows loaded.

Than I guess I must be magic :roll:.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 4, 2006 1:04:29 AM

Quote:
nice post, i knew it had something to do with win 64 VS 32. thanks for clarifying it.


I didn't read Tabris's post because he needs to stop copying from websites things he memorizes...anyways...

If you want to use all 4GB under 32-bit, set your Memory Hole configuration in BIOS and Windows will see all 4GB.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
That's the most BS I've ever heard.

You just can't outrun PAE-32 with all the devices in Windows loaded.

Than I guess I must be magic :roll:.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

then you better start showing some screenshots, cuz we don't see any "magic" yet, sorry. :roll:
April 4, 2006 1:23:49 AM

Quote:
nice post, i knew it had something to do with win 64 VS 32. thanks for clarifying it.


I didn't read Tabris's post because he needs to stop copying from websites things he memorizes...anyways...

If you want to use all 4GB under 32-bit, set your Memory Hole configuration in BIOS and Windows will see all 4GB.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
That's the most BS I've ever heard.

You just can't outrun PAE-32 with all the devices in Windows loaded.

Than I guess I must be magic :roll:.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

then you better start showing some screenshots, cuz we don't see any "magic" yet, sorry. :roll:

Like I said, give me 4 1GB sticks, all I got is 2, my other are ECC/Registered.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 4, 2006 2:28:42 AM

Quote:
You'd just use XP Pro x64 then Photoshop edit out the 'x64' part. :p 

Just use Windows Server 2003 Enterprise. It's free anyway. :trophy:


Have you seen my latest Photoshop Escapade? Yea...like I'm that advanced to create a distinct image of anything.... :roll:

I already have just about every version of Windows (thank you Microsoft IT Academy members) and Windows Server 2003 Enterprise is too slow, I use Datacenter, it's alot snappier.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 4, 2006 5:48:26 AM

Quote:
Exactly, you have PAE-36 and cheated. :p 


Nope.

I have AAE-128.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 4, 2006 6:54:34 PM

Quote:
You running an Itanium Mike ?


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I'd like to switch to an UltraSparc T1, 8-Core's w/ 4-Thread-Processing Per Core (32 Threads total, via CoolThreads Technology) and use some Dark Fiber...mwuahhahha ;D I'd be the IT World's Lover ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 5, 2006 10:39:25 AM

I must admit I have mistaken you for a fanboy.

Last few week seen you recommend a Intel system, and now you're looking at (non x86) Sun Microsystems gear.

Just one step closer to understanding what makes you tick I guess.
!